2014 SOI Keeper Fantasy Football League

[Kid]

Any draft order you see on Yahoo has not yet been set.  This is the 1st round draft order and it is a snaking draft:


1. PcB

2. Fella

3. Wi

4. Clapp

5. Slaw

6. Koz

7. Liner

8. BT

9. Rapp

10. Kid

[BT]

I made changes to the draft order. Kid, double check make sure I didn't screw it up. 

 

PcB, do you really want to save Gordon, or are you trying to make a point now? I see both sides of this, and it would be much easier if we could just make the rule and go forward without figuring out what to do retroactively. 

[PcB]

I made changes to the draft order. Kid, double check make sure I didn't screw it up. 

 

PcB, do you really want to save Gordon, or are you trying to make a point now? I see both sides of this, and it would be much easier if we could just make the rule and go forward without figuring out what to do retroactively. 

Yes I want to keep Gordon. That's why I picked him up last year.

[Kid]

I get the idea, as liner said, that this falls under the category that you'd hope people would follow a "don't be a douche" standard, but I would just note that if PcB is grandfathered, then we are encouraging anybody who identifies a loophole to exploit it.  Whoever spots a loophole gets to use it and then nobody else does.  I think it's a better standard to say that, at least if a loophole can be closed in such a way that it doesn't hurt anybody any more than putting them in the same shoes they'd have been in if the loophole hadn't existed in the first place, nobody should be able to take advantage of a loophole

[PcB]

I get the idea, as liner said, that this falls under the category that you'd hope people would follow a "don't be a douche" standard, but I would just note that if PcB is grandfathered, then we are encouraging anybody who identifies a loophole to exploit it.  Whoever spots a loophole gets to use it and then nobody else does.  I think it's a better standard to say that, at least if a loophole can be closed in such a way that it doesn't hurt anybody any more than putting them in the same shoes they'd have been in if the loophole hadn't existed in the first place, nobody should be able to take advantage of a loophole

Didn't the Cubs exploit the IFA loophole, MLB saw that and patched it the next year, allowing the Cubs to do what they had already done?

[Kid]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Kid" data-cid="289337" data-time="1472822672">
I get the idea, as liner said, that this falls under the category that you'd hope people would follow a "don't be a douche" standard, but I would just note that if PcB is grandfathered, then we are encouraging anybody who identifies a loophole to exploit it.  Whoever spots a loophole gets to use it and then nobody else does.  I think it's a better standard to say that, at least if a loophole can be closed in such a way that it doesn't hurt anybody any more than putting them in the same shoes they'd have been in if the loophole hadn't existed in the first place, nobody should be able to take advantage of a loophole

Didn't the Cubs exploit the IFA loophole, MLB saw that and patched it the next year, allowing the Cubs to do what they had already done?
 


</blockquote>
What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?  The question currently pending is whether, in this fantasy football league, people who identify a loophole should be allowed to exploit it or, if the loophole can be patched without otherwise hurting anybody, whether we should have a policy to not allow people to exploit loopholes.

 

The sensible position is that it's impossible to create rules that will address every conceivable situation.  That's how loopholes are created in the first place.  It makes no sense to patch a loophole while allowing one person to exploit it (provided that they are in no worse a position than if the loophole hadn't existed in the first place).

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

I still don't see this as a loophole but as a different keeper issue altogether. As I mentioned before, PcB's move comes at no one else's expense. I also don't see it as douchebaggery. I might have done the same thing PcB did had I been thinking of it--and I certainly would not see it as underhanded. I really don't understand why this would bother people. Particularly--and again I had forgotten this--since Gordon is suspended for the first four games.

 

But like I said earlier, I'd vote for a keeper deadline to keep this from being an issue in the future. So if there are two votes to be counted, mine are

 

1: PcB gets to keep Gordon

2: Starting this year, we establish a keeper deadline 

[BT]

Swamped at work, but my problem with the keeper deadline is that it's more administrative work. Kid already ends up having to do 3/4ths of my commissioner stuff, so I'd like to keep that stuff to a minimum. 

[Fella]

I really don't see a problem with this one, Gordon wasn't drafted last year, he was on free agency all year, he gets picked up and kept for a 7th rounder, anyone could have done it. Every rule was followed, I don't see a loop hole.


I think this is a different situation than the Ace one, that one was clearly a loophole because he was taking advantage of someone's misfortune and got a better deal on a guy than the original owner could have. That just wasn't fair. It was an easy loophole to fix. This is different because everyone had the same chance on the same playing field. Making another rule for this one is overkill IMO and a keeper deadline would be more admin work and could have unintended consequences.


Also as an aside, I don't think Gordon is a good keeper anyway, he is ranked the #38 WR on the consensus rankings on fantasy pros and he is suspended for 1/3rd of the fantasy regular season like Clapp said.


Anyway that's my two cents, I'm fine with whatever everyone decides.

[Kid]

I still don't see this as a loophole but as a different keeper issue altogether. As I mentioned before, PcB's move comes at no one else's expense. I also don't see it as douchebaggery. I might have done the same thing PcB did had I been thinking of it--and I certainly would not see it as underhanded. I really don't understand why this would bother people. Particularly--and again I had forgotten this--since Gordon is suspended for the first four games.

 

But like I said earlier, I'd vote for a keeper deadline to keep this from being an issue in the future. So if there are two votes to be counted, mine are

 

1: PcB gets to keep Gordon

2: Starting this year, we establish a keeper deadline 

 

I think you're debating semantics.

 

There's no question that we already had rules in place to deal with a similar, albeit not identical, issue (claiming IR players).

 

There seems to be no dispute that what PcB did is a problem that at least needs to be prevented going forward.

 

As far as I'm concerned that neatly fits the definition of a loophole, but I don't care if you call it such.

 

The point is simply that if, as is the case, there is a consensus to prevent this issue going forward and there's a way to deal with it this time without hurting PcB (beyond whether or not he can keep Gordon), I see no reason to effectively make an exception this time.

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="VanSlawAndCottoCheese" data-cid="289356" data-time="1472837143">
<div>
I still don't see this as a loophole but as a different keeper issue altogether. As I mentioned before, PcB's move comes at no one else's expense. I also don't see it as douchebaggery. I might have done the same thing PcB did had I been thinking of it--and I certainly would not see it as underhanded. I really don't understand why this would bother people. Particularly--and again I had forgotten this--since Gordon is suspended for the first four games.

 

But like I said earlier, I'd vote for a keeper deadline to keep this from being an issue in the future. So if there are two votes to be counted, mine are

 

1: PcB gets to keep Gordon

2: Starting this year, we establish a keeper deadline 

 

I think you're debating semantics.

 

There's no question that we already had rules in place to deal with a similar, albeit not identical, issue (claiming IR players).

 

There seems to be no dispute that what PcB did is a problem that at least needs to be prevented going forward.

 

As far as I'm concerned that neatly fits the definition of a loophole, but I don't care if you call it such.

</div>
</blockquote>
 

Nope, nope, nope. There is definitely a dispute here. I've kind of made that clear many times over. And similar rules don't mean the same rule at all. This isn't simply a semantic dispute. There is an issue with the Ace situation that doesn't exist with the PcB situation. I'm fine if a keeper deadline is put in place, but my vote for it should not be construed as advocating that picking up Gordon and keeping him in the 7th round is a problem that needs to be solved. My vote for the deadline would be mainly so people who are bothered by it wouldn't get a chance to be bothered by it in the future.

 

 

The point is simply that if, as is the case, there is a consensus to prevent this issue going forward and there's a way to deal with it this time without hurting PcB (beyond whether or not he can keep Gordon), I see no reason to effectively make an exception this time.

 

Here's one reason: if this really i such a big deal, why did this escape notice until a few days before the draft? If PcB didn't ask the question on the board, we'd be debating the issue mere hours before the draft, which seems to me to be a crappy time to tell him "no dice" when the transaction happened 8-9 months ago.

 

Besides that, I still insist that there's a real difference between Ace's situation and this one and have heard to evidence to convince me of otherwise.

 

I have no idea why I'm going to the mat for PcB here, as it can only be detrimental to my (and everyone else's) team, other than I honestly don't see the logic of your argument on this one, Kid. I don't mean to be difficult, but I can't see how this is the same situation and why you care so much if it will be "resolved" (for those who feel it needs to be) anyway going forward.

[Kid]

Here's one reason: if this really i such a big deal, why did this escape notice until a few days before the draft? If PcB didn't ask the question on the board, we'd be debating the issue mere hours before the draft, which seems to me to be a crappy time to tell him "no dice" when the transaction happened 8-9 months ago.

 

Because I was in the playoffs and wasn't paying any attention to the transactions of the teams in the consolation games that have no effect on anything in this league, including the draft order.

[Kid]

Also, how is PcB prejudiced by telling him now vs. telling him in December?  What exactly was he going to do in December with that information that he can't do now?

[PcB]

Also, how is PcB prejudiced by telling him now vs. telling him in December?  What exactly was he going to do in December with that information that he can't do now?

I could have dropped Gordon and picked up someone else right?

[Kid]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Kid" data-cid="289433" data-time="1472855025">
Also, how is PcB prejudiced by telling him now vs. telling him in December?  What exactly was he going to do in December with that information that he can't do now?

I could have dropped Gordon and picked up someone else right?
 


</blockquote>
 

Yes, after your season was over, you could have picked up somebody else that wasn't good enough to be one of the 160 players on a roster for the sole purpose of keeping that player.

 

Let me suggest that you probably don't want to follow this line of argument.